There's a Police Force that Still Issues REVOLVERS?

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, here's another example of the cluelessness of the media when it comes to firearms, and the double-standard between the honorable law-enforcement community and we mere peons.

And, of course, the obligatory reference to evil "assault weapons."

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports on the police force's desire to upgrade from revolvers to semi-autos. Let us fisk:

Police may switch to semi-autos

Rank and file police officers could soon holster identical firearms if the police chief gets his way. He's developing a standardized gun policy to better protect officers with concern for not risking public safety, he said.

Remember that point.

"We must provide officers with the tools to combat the crooks who are better armed than we are," said Police Chief Pete Alvarez. Alvarez's officer survey indicates semi-automatic weapons are the gun of choice.

A cost of approximately $500 to $700 per gun for officers will be paid for using drug seizure money allotted for the police department, the chief said. Police officers are initially issued revolvers and now pay for their own semi-automatic weapons.

That's a pretty sucky policy, I'll grant. But here comes the evil "assault weapon" bit:

Police ability to protect and defend the public wanes when they're caught in the open and run out of firepower while facing a bullet-spitting SKS assault rifle wielded by a gang member, Alvarez said.

It's a semi-automatic rifle that fires more accurately from long-range.

"The SKS is a common weapon in Corpus Christi, and police are definitely outgunned," said John Hornsby, 36, Corpus Christi police ballistics' identification supervisor. "But I'm not a fan of the 'one-size-gun-fits-all' mindset."

(*Sigh*)

First, the SKS is NOT an "assault rifle," even by the (admittedly loose) Federal definition. It has a fixed magazine, no pistol grip, and only holds ten rounds.

It is a semi-automatic rifle, but then, so is the Ruger Mini-14 - a weapon excluded from the AWB that does take a detachable magazine. They both "spit bullets."

Aren't all firearms "bullet-spitting?"

And what, exactly, does "fires more accurately from long-range" mean? More accurately than what? What constitutes "long range"? The switch to semi-auto pistols is supposed to make the police equal to SKS-toting gangsters? Um, the SKS is a rifle. A pistol is what you use to fight your way to your rifle.

I'm supposed to believe the author of this is a Texan? Must be a Yankee transplant.

Gun uniformity is a law enforcement agency trend recently adopted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, FBI, Parks and Wildlife wardens and others, Alvarez said.

Because they are often in rural areas and might be chasing vehicles, the Nueces County Sheriff's Department often uses weapons designed for more long-range use. The DPS already uses a semi-automatic weapon.

As a long-range handgunner myself, I call "BULLSHIT!" Revolvers are by far more suitable to long-range shooting than semi-autos, second only to single-shot specialty pistols. Semi-autos are better at "bullet-spitting," though. (Remember that "public safety" quote, now.)

Benefits of standardizing

The benefits outweigh the concerns, Alvarez said. A standardized weapon policy would:

Enhance officer safety

Save costs by not duplicating training

Better protect the public

The Corpus Christi Police Department provides cadets with either a .357-caliber Magnum or .38-caliber revolver that holds six bullets and trains them with this type of gun. But about 80 percent of the 437 officers have received secondary training to carry semi-automatic weapons that have cartridges holding 16 rounds. The department has nine models and calibers approved for use, police officials said.

Uh, right. Well, he didn't call them "clips" at least. Anyway, the cops have the choice of carrying a six-shot revolver, or a sixteen shot pistol. I know what choice I'd take. I'd much rather spit sixteen rounds between reloads.

When officers choose to shelve the department-issued revolver and purchase, out of their own pockets, a semi-automatic weapon, they have to complete a 10-hour automatic weapon transitional course before they're allowed to use it in service. If the department adopts a standardized firearm policy, only the initial 40-hour academy weapons training would be required.

"This standardized firearm policy would save the department about $350 per officer by eliminating secondary training," said Cmdr. Bryan Smith, in charge of police training. It will also reduce the ammunition inventory kept in stock at the firing range, he said.

"The benefit is creating one method of training with one trigger-pull that every officer would be expected to master," Smith said. Guns come with different trigger pressures and grips.

Now there's a newsflash.

Most buy own semi-autos

Most Corpus Christi police officers have chosen to buy their own semi-automatic weapons in the past 20 years, but opinions regarding the use of revolvers and semi-automatic guns are as varied as the types of weapons being used.

Assistant Chief Ken Bung has been reviewing responses from officers regarding a change to standardized weapons and says that most officers seem to prefer a .40-caliber semi-automatic weapon.

"We want a weapon that the biggest majority of our officers can shoot effectively," Bung said. Of 58 responses to the chief's survey, some of which represent several officers' opinions, more than half favor a standardized weapon, Bung said. Twelve respondents thought more than one weapon should be authorized, and almost all wanted a semi-automatic weapon, he said.

The department is also reviewing research material from other police agencies, and Bung said they should make an educated decision "fairly soon."

Surviving with revolvers

Some officers have survived tense situations with the standard-issue six-shooter.

"One officer was shot a few years ago before he cleared leather with his weapon," said Cmdr. Jesse Garcia, the uniform police supervisor. "He emptied his .357 returning fire and had the barrel in the guy's stomach when it finally clicked empty."

But last November Officer Phillip Bintliff, 34, ran out of ammunition in a shootout in the 4000 block of Schanen Boulevard when a suspect shot him in the abdomen, Garcia said.

In the same shootout, officer Jose Smith, 28, was shot in the forehead and dropped his weapon, a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun that holds 16 rounds, and the suspect retrieved it to shoot police officer Israel Carrasco, 32, in the shoulder and leg, Garcia said.

"Hands down, the semi-automatic is the way to go," Garcia said. "But it'd be like the department buying one size rain coat for everyone."

Err, perhaps a poor analogy Commander. That way you end up with some officers enveloped in their raincoats, and some with their limbs sticking out in the rain.

It's more important that the officer be able to shoot what he or she carries, as New Mexico State Trooper Lt. Don Day recently demonstrated when he used his single-action revolver - loaded with only five rounds - to stop a bank robber.

Some semi-automatic weapons have been known to jam.

"It depends on the quality of the gun," Garcia said. "Any automatic has the possibility of a jam, but proper caretaking minimizes it, and officers are trained to clear jamming."

Well, yes and no. If you're wounded and "limp-wristing" the reliability of semi-auto pistols is definitely less than that of revolvers. Revolvers can fail, though it's rare, and they're far less sensitive to ammo quality, but when a revolver fails, it's usually a major failure, not a "tap, rack, bang" semi-auto jam.

Calls for variety of weapons

Other high-ranking police officials voiced concerns.

"We don't buy one size pair of pants," said Capt. Mike McKinney, communications supervisor. "I don't think we can buy one handgun and everyone be able to shoot it competently."

Apparently Captain McKinney isn't fond of the single-size issue raincoat.

McKinney thinks the department should have gun manufacturers provide a variety of guns for extensive testing.

"We need different size officers, with different skill levels, men and women, to shoot several hundred rounds from each firearm," McKinney said. "That's the only way to compare a cross-section and decide what's best for the department as a whole."

There's a variety of ammunition to choose from for use with semi-automatic weapons, and it is an important consideration for public safety, Alvarez said.

Some agencies have different requirements.

"FBI agents use ammunition that penetrates and exits the suspect," McKinney said. "Their thought is that the suspect will bleed out and drop sooner with two wounds."

For local police, the ammunition of choice for semi-automatic weapons is a 124-grain hollow-point bullet made by Federal called Hydra-Shok, McKinney said.

Hollow point bullets take in fluid and tissue while tearing through a body, which causes the slug to expand and slow down, Hornsby said. Depending on the angle of the shot, distance and how it hits, the slug often doesn't exit the body, he said.

Alvarez said the nature of the hollow points lessens the possibility that a bullet could exit an intended target and strike another person.

"We need to select ammunition with enough knock-down power to get the job done," Alvarez said. "But not powerful enough to continue trajectory to others."

"We've got to change with the times," Alvarez said. "Criminals are better equipped and we shouldn't be left behind."

OK, now remember the bit about public safety? Check the graphic that came with the story:

Yet New Jersey makes civilian peon possession of hollowpoint ammo illegal, calling them "cop-killer" bullets, although the NYPD uses the 124 grain 9mm Hydrashok. But this article explains that hollowpoint ammo is safer for the public - that's why the police use them.

I love the ignorance and logical inconsistencies the anti-gun crowd constantly exhibits.

It would be more entertaining if they weren't so dangerous.

Dept. of Geek Humor

Things like this are why I stopped studying Physics and became an electrical engineer. Read this (very) brief lab report entitled:

Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass

Damn, that's funny. Thanks to Geekpress for the link.

Michael Bellesiles' Arming America Still Influencing the Gun Control Debate

At least the evidence leads UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh to that conclusion when he disassembles the Second Amendment chapter of a State Department publication on the "Rights of the People." Excerpt:

"In many states regulations continued [following the Revolution] prohibiting . . . propertyless whites from owning guns." I have seen this claim in several places, all of them in the work of Michael Bellesiles. None of those places gave any citations for statutes that actually banned propertyless whites from owning guns. I tried hard to find any evidence of such statutes -- none, to my knowledge, exists. To my knowledge, there were no such "regulations," in any states, much less many states. (Incidentally, it may well be that the author reasonably relied on Bellesiles' work before it was debunked, as did I; but since the publication is on the Web, one would think that it would be updated to correct the errors that reliance on Bellesiles' work has yielded.)

--

"One scholarly study holds that less than 14 percent of the adult white male population, those otherwise eligible to own guns, actually possessed firearms in 1790." That much is accurate -- but that one scholarly study, unless I'm woefully mistaken, is Michael Bellesiles' now-debunked work. I know of no credible source for such a statistic."

Yet I've seen, over and over, claims that Bellesiles had no political motive in writing his book.

If you believe that, I hold title to this bridge in Brooklyn, and I've got a great deal for you on some prime land in the Everglades...

UPDATE: The web site now shows "(The accompanying essay is under review.)"

I LOVE the blogosphere - a functional feedback loop to political correctness!

I'd Expect Nothing Else from Rolling Stone

A short piece in Rolling Stone's most recent edition discusses the recent brouhaha in the Senate:

The NRA's Gunfight

Gun-control advocates win their biggest congressional battle in years

Uh, right.

Depends on your perspective, I guess, but stopping legislation has traditionally been the gun-rights advocate's definition of "victory." If the gun-control advocates consider it "victory" now, I guess we really have reversed the pendulum.

Bull's eye shooter supply, a great barn of a building in Tacoma, Washington, sells everything from air rifles to the Bushmaster XM15 semiautomatic rifle, a kind of high-class M-16.

Right. Like a Porsche Boxster is a "kind of high class" 959. They're both nice, the classes are obviously inverted.

Upstairs, you can try a gun before you buy it at one of twelve indoor shooting lanes, where children under 12 yrs shoot free when accompanied by adult.

Horrors! Children! Guns! Child abuse!

I'm sure the evil Bull's Eye forces 12 year-olds to pay if they come in alone.

For a building that contains enough firepower to overthrow Kim Jong Il, security is remarkably lax. "It's pretty amazing," says Richard Van Loan, a federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "You have guns not tethered down, no security cameras, nobody checking the doors." According to the ATF, at least 238 guns have "disappeared" from the store -- and fifty-two have been used in crimes. The snipers who terrorized the nation's capital in 2002, for instance, managed to obtain the Bushmaster they used to kill ten people from Bull's Eye without bothering to pay for it.

And only after that did the ATF pull Brian Borgelt's Federal Firearms License. Why was that? Why is the ATF not in some way responsible for ensuring that Bull's Eye do proper record-keeping or risk loss of its license?

Relatives of nine of the victims sued Bull's Eye and Bushmaster Firearms, claiming their negligence led to the killings. Last June, a judge agreed to let the lawsuit go forward, citing Bull's Eye's "allegedly reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms." But if the National Rifle Association and President Bush have their way, the case will never go before a jury. The NRA and the White House are pushing a bill that prohibits lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms that end up killing or maiming people. Supporters call it the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Opponents call it the Bull's Eye Protection Act.

And that is, as far as I can tell, a lie. The bill certainly protected Bushmaster, as even the author of this piece doesn't seem willing to outright accuse Bushmaster of being negligent in this case (though, to be honest he's more than happy to implicate them by association.) However, if, as Malvo admitted and the story states, the gun was stolen from the store, how is Bull's Eye responsible? Because of its history of "losing" firearms? Then why is the ATF not also culpable?

The bill set off the biggest congressional gunfight in years. The House passed the measure by a wide margin, and the Senate seemed all but certain to follow suit. Then, on March 2nd, gun-control advocates managed to tack two amendments onto the bill that are anathema to the NRA: one extending the ban on assault weapons and another requiring background checks on customers at gun shows. "It's the NRA's dream bill -- with some of its worst nightmares attached," said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He left off "the Sainted," as in "the Sainted Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

But I guess that's assumed, now.

Determined to block the amendments, the NRA e-mailed dozens of senators in the midst of the vote, urging them to reject its own bill. Some lawmakers read the messages on their pagers while they were considering the measure on the Senate floor. In one of the most unexpected turnarounds in memory, the Senate voted 90 to 8 to reject the bill.

"I've been around here eighteen years," Sen. John McCain told reporters after the vote, "and I've never seen anything quite this bizarre."

I wonder why he didn't use Feinstein's quote from the New York Times:

"I'm a bit numb," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, the lead sponsor of the assault weapons ban, said after the final vote. Of the rifle association, she said: "They had the power to turn around at least 60 votes in the Senate. That's amazing to me."

But it was a gun control victory, right?

But the fight isn't over yet. The Senate must still debate whether to renew the ban on assault weapons, set to expire in September. And Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, a sponsor of the bill protecting the gun industry from lawsuits, vowed to push for another vote on the measure soon. "This issue," he warned, "will not go away."

Um, no, the Senate doesn't have any need to debate renewal of the AWB. It can just let it sunset without further discussion, though I doubt the gun-grabbers will allow that.

Oh well, at least the article wasn't a complete fabrication of lies.

Blogroll Addition: Free Market Fairy Tales

I just added Mr. Free Market's blog, Free Market Fairy Tales, to my blogroll. I beat on the English government a lot in this blog, but he has to live there under it. He does so with wry wit and extreme patience, by all appearances, and he's one of the few there still willing to jump through all the hoops required to own firearms and shoot recreationally.

When you've finally had enough, Mr. Free Market, remember there's plenty of space over on this side of the pond, and we'd be pleased to have you.

And if you ever visit Arizona, my home is yours.

Good Thing I Didn't Hold My Breath

It's now been at least one week since I wrote to W. John Tritt, Dan K. Thomasson, Stan Hall, and Paul Vitello, informing each that I had rebutted their anti-gun columns, that I had called each and every one of them deliberate liars, and inviting them to respond to my accusations.

Not a peep.

I'm not surprised. I'm just a lowly blogger with a couple thousand hits a week, hardly worth their notice, while their lies are spread by people who by ink by the barrel. Still, I feel better for having vented, and I intend to keep it up.

Fuck 'em.

Are We Descending into World War IV?

Mark Steyn has a retrospective piece up, published exactly one year ago today - The Death of Europe, in which he said:

It's the European argument today: just as the 20th century belonged to America, so the 21st will belong to Europe, a Europe that cannot - and, indeed, disdains to - compete with the Yanks in "aggression" (military capability) or "materialism" (capitalism red in tooth and claw), and so has devised a better way. We've all had a grand old time these last few weeks watching M Chirac demonstrate his mastery of "the arts of peace" and his "lofty moral character", but it would perhaps be fairer to choose a more representative Euro-grandee to articulate the EUtopian vision. Step forward Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, who said in London last year that "the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests."

--

Best case scenario: you wind up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates. Don't get me wrong, I love Vienna. I especially like the way you can stroll down their streets and never hear any ghastly rockers and rappers caterwauling. When you go into a record store, the pop category's a couple of bins at the back and there's two floors of operetta. All very pleasant, though not if you're into surfing the cutting edge of the zeitgeist. I quite like Stockholm, too. Well, I like the babes, but they're gonna be a lot wrinklier by 2050. Its 60% overall tax rate is likely to be the base in the Europe of 2020 and fondly recalled as the good old days by mid-century.

Worst case scenario: Sharia, circa 2070.

Steven Den Beste makes an uncharacteristically short, but typically razor-sharp comment on Spain's reaction to terrorist attack:

The people of Spain marched in the streets on Friday.

Then they crawled on their knees into their voting booths on Sunday.

Amen.

The Feces Flinging Monkey links to two telling comments, the first one here, and I will quote his piece entire:

It Dosen't Get Much Clearer Than This

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission of the EU:

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper.

Well, that's it, then.

There are lots of Americans who would agree; they will mostly be voting for John Kerry this fall. Most of the rest of us will be voting for George Bush.

It's not about Red and Blue anymore. The war comes first.

And the second one here:

Dear Spain,

Sincerely, sorrow for your loss.

Sincerely, thank you for your support.

Sincerely, nice knowing you.

I hope that appeasement thing works out, but, it never does.

It appears that Mr. Steyn called it last year. Europe is destined for Sharia, and 2070 might be way, way late.

That will leave us and possibly some of the recently freed Eastern European nations against the forces of radical Islam that now appear to be controlling "old Europe" through immigration and intimidation.

World War III was the "Cold War" - a war of superpowers fought at low-intensity, and by proxy forces in little countries around the world. World War IV will be a different war yet - another low-intensity conflict, but one fought on our own soil for once, and in many other disparate places. Another war without fronts. A war in which the combatants are difficult to identify, and who use our freedoms against us. A type of war that Israel has been fighting for decades.

A type of war that, in its genocidal intent, might provoke a genocidal response.

Walter Russel Mead wrote in The Jacksonian Tradition

Jacksonian America has clear ideas about how wars should be fought, how enemies should be treated, and what should happen when the wars are over. It recognizes two kinds of enemies and two kinds of fighting: honorable enemies fight a clean fight and are entitled to be opposed in the same way; dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off.

An honorable enemy is one who declares war before beginning combat; fights according to recognized rules of war, honoring such traditions as the flag of truce; treats civilians in occupied territory with due consideration; and - a crucial point - refrains from the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Those who surrender should be treated with generosity. Adversaries who honor the code will benefit from its protections, while those who want a dirty fight will get one.

There's a tasteless joke making the rounds of the internet:

At a small airport terminal in Texas, three strangers awaiting their shuttle flight start conversing about the recent worldly events. The strangers were of varying cultures. One was Native American. Another was a cowboy from West Texas. The other person was a devout Arab Muslim.

During their conversation, they began to discuss their cultural history. The Native American stated "once my people were many, now we are few."

The Muslim then chimed in and said, "once my people were few and now we are many."

The cowboy looked at the Muslim, shifted the toothpick in his mouth and said with a sly grin, "that's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet."

Just because it's tasteless, doesn't mean there's no truth in it.

It is my sincere hope that it doesn't come to that, but better that than Shari'a.

New Jersey Strikes Again

This time they crack down on evil imitation firearms. Seems one Robert B. McManus was pulled over for speeding when the officer saw what he thought was an H&K MP5 submachinegun in the back of McManus's hatchback. The story says:

McManus was immediately ordered out of the vehicle and handcuffed, police said.

Further investigation showed the gun is an imitation firearm used to fire pellets and paintballs.

Ok, I'll go along with the reaction of the officer. But wait! There's more!

Police then found a virtual arsenal of other imitation guns that were properly cased.

Police allegedly found an imitation Remington Model 700 sniper rifle with an imitation silencer, an imitation M-16 rifle, an imitation Beretta .9-mm (sic) handgun, another imitation machine gun and an imitation hand grenade.

All of the guns fired pellets and paintballs, police said.

Police said the guns are legal in New Jersey (For now) except under certain circumstances where they are deemed to pose a threat.

A threat? To whom? I imagine the officer drew down on McManus, so he was the one at risk. What was he going to do, put out the officer's eye?

So, instead of the officer explaining to Mr. McManus why having that piece exposed on his back seat wasn't such a bright idea, they cited him with "a fourth-degree criminal offense." I've no way of knowing if that "fourth degree criminal offense" is a misdemeanor or a felony in New Jersey.

And note the clever use of "virtual arsenal" in the story. Was it virtually an arsenal, or an arsenal of virtual weapons? And did McManus get to keep his "virtual arsenal" or is it now the virtual property of the State? Those things aren't cheap.

(Link received from the proprietor of Feces Flinging Monkey.)

Stick a Fork in England. They're Done

We locked you up in jail for 25 years and you were innocent all along? That’ll be £80,000 please

Blunkett charges miscarriage of justice victims ‘food and lodgings’
By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor 3/14/04


WHAT do you give someone who’s been proved innocent after spending the best part of their life behind bars, wrongfully convicted of a crime they didn’t commit?

An apology, maybe? Counselling? Champagne? Compensation? Well, if you’re David Blunkett, the Labour Home Secretary, the choice is simple: you give them a big, fat bill for the cost of board and lodgings for the time they spent freeloading at Her Majesty’s Pleasure in British prisons.

On Tuesday, Blunkett will fight in the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the right to charge victims of miscarriages of justice more than £3000 (Almost $5,400) for every year they spent in jail while wrongly convicted. The logic is that the innocent man shouldn’t have been in prison eating free porridge and sleeping for nothing under regulation grey blankets.

Blunkett’s fight has been described as “outrageous”, “morally repugnant” and the “sickest of sick jokes”, but his spokesmen in the Home Office say it’s a completely “reasonable course of action” as the innocent men and women would have spent the money anyway on food and lodgings if they weren’t in prison. The government deems the claw-back ‘Saved Living Expenses’.

And this isn't a new idea. They've done something similar before!

Paddy Hill was one of the Birmingham Six. He spent 16 years behind bars for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings by the IRA. Hill now lives on a farm with his wife and children near Beith in Scotland. He has been charged £50,000 (That's just shy of $90k) for living expenses by the Home Office.

It wasn’t until two years ago that Hill was finally awarded £960,000 in compensation. However, during the years since his release, while waiting for the pay-out, the government had given him advances of around £300,000. When his compensation came through, the £300,000 was taken back along with interest on the interim payments charged at 23% – that cost him a further £70,000.

One hand giveth, another taketh away.

“The whole system is absurd,” Hill said. “I’m so angry about what has happened to me. I try and tell people about being charged for bed and board in jail and they can’t believe it.

“When I left prison I was given no training for freedom – no counselling or psychological preparation. Yet the guilty get that when they are released. To charge me for the food I ate and the cell I slept in is almost as big an injustice as fitting me up in the first place.

Hell, when they released serial criminal Brandon Fearon, they gave him money so he could sue Tony Martin, the farmer who shot him when Fearon tried to burglarize Martin's home.

“While I was in prison, my family lost their home, yet they get no compensation. But the state wants its money back. It’s like being kicked in the head when someone has beat you already.

“I have to put up with this, yet there has not been one police officer convicted of fitting people up. The Home Office had no shortage of money to keep me in jail or to run a charade of a trial.

“But they had enough money to frame me. Nevertheless, when it comes to paying out compensation for ruining my life they happily rip me to shreds.”

Hill is not leading the legal action against the government – instead he has handed the baton to another high-profile victim of miscarriage of justice: Mike O’Brien.

O’Brien spent 10 years in jail wrongly convicted of killing a Cardiff newsagent. His baby daughter died while he was in prison and he was charged £37,500 by the Home Office for his time behind bars.

Hill said he cannot lead the legal fight as the Birmingham Six have fought every legal action together, but now three of them are over 70 and Hill believes it is too much to ask them to join him in taking on the government yet again.

He said he was also worried about the compensation payments for the other members of the Birmingham Six being affected if they joined him in court against the government.

“The establishment hate me and people like me as we proved them wrong,” he said. “They either want to ignore us or hurt us.”

O’Brien took the Home Office to court last March and won, but Blunkett appealed the decision. On Tuesday, the rights and wrongs of the government policy will be decided at the Royal Courts.

I'm not taking bets on that decision.

O’Brien said: “Morally, the position of the government is just outrageous. It shows total contempt for the victims of miscarriages of justice. It makes me livid.

“I really believe if we win the appeal this week, the government is evil enough to take me to the House of Lords. They are trying to break us. I really think this is personal as far as the government is concerned.

“A government really can’t get much worse than this. But I am confident that we will win as the law and morality are on our side.”

Vincent Hickey, one of the Bridgewater Four who was wrongly convicted for killing a paperboy, was charged £60,000 for the 17 years he spent in jail. He said: “If I had known this I would have stayed on hunger-strike longer, that way I would have had a smaller bill.”

John McManus, of the Scottish Miscarriage of Justice Organisation, said: “This is reprehensible. How can we call ourselves a democratic, civilised society when our government is acting like this?

How can you call yourselves a democratic, civilized society when you deny people the right to defend themselves?

“The government seems intent on punishing innocent people. The state wants to be paid for making a mistake. It’s hard to believe someone actually thought this policy up. If you tell a child about this they will think it insane.

“Only a sick mind could have invented this policy, yet the government is fighting to retain the right to act like this. It is cruelty with intent. They seem to want to punish people for having the audacity to be innocent.”

The SNP’s shadow justice minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said: “This is outrageous. It is another assault by Blunkett on the rule of law and on civil liberties. These people didn’t chose to go to prison. They were wrongly convicted, and to charge them for it beggars belief.”

The Home Office said an “independent assessor appointed by the Home Secretary takes into acccount the range of costs the prisoner might have incurred had they not been imprisoned”. The spokes man said the assessor was “right” to do this, adding: “Morally, this is reasonable and appropriate.”

I suggest that, if the Home Office really believes this then their "moral compass" is spinning wildly.

‘I was a hostage, now they are billing me’

ROBERT Brown was just a 19-year-old from Glasgow when he was jailed for life for murdering a woman called Annie Walsh in Manchester in 1977. He served 25 years before he was finally freed in 2002, when the courts ruled him innocent of the crime.

He is now facing a bill of around £80,000 for the living expenses he cost the state. For Brown, it is the final straw. An interim payment he was given pending his full compensation offer is exhausted; his mother recently died; his relationship with his girlfriend has fallen apart and he is facing eviction from his home following a mix-up over benefits.

“I feel like ending my life,” he says. “I’ve tried to maintain my dignity, but the state has treated me with nothing but contempt – now they are asking me for money for my bed and board in jail.

“I never contemplated suicide once while I was in prison, but it’s different on the outside. I have received no counselling or support. Society is treating me like something you’d wipe off the bottom of your shoes, but I’m an innocent man and a victim of a terrible injustice.

“It’s horrific. I’ve been out of jail for 14 months and in that time the state has put me through a war of attrition that it never needed to conduct. I feel my life is disintegrating around me.

“Making me pay for my bed and board is abhorrent. I was arrested, fitted up and held hostage for 25 years and now they are going to charge me for being kept as their prisoner against my will.

“Can you think of a more disgusting way to abuse someone? I really feel that my heart is truly and finally broken.”

First disarm them, then enslave them, right?

Spain Capitulates. Poland Fills the Breach

As Spain surrenders to the terrorists and yanks its troops out of America's unilateral coalition, Poland announces its intention to take up the duties Spain is abandoning, according to this CNN story:

BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) -- Poland has vowed not to pull troops out of Iraq because of "terrorist" attacks and said it was willing to remain in command of a stabilisation force there if Spain, which had been due to take over, withdrew.

Spain was due to take command of 9,000 troops in central Iraq on July 1, but that was thrown into doubt on Monday when Socialist Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he could bring home the Spanish 1,300 troops currently there.

--

Poland has 2,400 troops in Iraq and has led a 9,000-strong division of troops from 24 nations in a central-south zone since last September.

"If it is necessary, we will continue leading the multinational division," Polish Ambassador to NATO Jerzy M. Nowak told Reuters in Brussels. "We are prepared for that even if Spain is not able to fulfil its promise."

Note Reuter's use of scare quotes when it says "terrorist."

Asshats.

I wonder how those 1,300 troops feel about being pulled out of Iraq now that their countrymen have been the victims of these "terrorists"?

Pissed, I hope.

Bumpersticker Seen on the Back of a Volvo Yesterday

END GLOBAL
WHINING!

Can I get an "AMEN!"?

Another Reason Banning Guns Never Works

Rule #1 of Economics: Wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply.

In this example we have the Pakistani town of Darra - home of gunmakers for over 100 years, according to this page.

Check out those beautiful Enfields!

And how about these detachable-magazine Broomhandle Mausers!

These people don't have CNC machine tools. Hell, they don't have much in the way of tools at all, yet they make perfectly functional firearms.

Guns aren't rocket science. They're pretty simple devices. Banning 'em cannot make them all go away.

"Happy Birthday to Me..."

Actually, it was last week, but I got my present today. I purchased a like-new Bulgarian Makarov pistol, a Fobus paddle holster, and 500 rounds of Wolf 9x18 109gr. FMJ ammo. Range trip tomorrow!

I was going to purchase it through AIM Surplus via an FFL I know through the Tucson Rifle Club, but making arrangements to get AIM a copy of his license and all the other hassles involved in the deal, plus the fact that I'm sometimes not as patient as I should be led me to be sitting in the parking lot of my favorite gun shop in Tucson at 8:50 this morning, waiting for them to open. Sure enough, they had a Bulgarian Mak with two magazines - $174.95. (A reasonable markup, IMHO.) Unfortunately the only ammo they had was CCI Blazer and American Eagle at way-too-much-$$/box, so I went to another shop for ammo - with the same results.

So, I girded my loins (why does that sound faintly risque?) and went downtown to the Roadrunner Gun Show at the Tucson Convention Center.

$4.00 to park.

$8.00 to get in.

ONE ammo dealer, and all he had that was even close to what I wanted was Wolf FMJ at $47.95/500. I wanted to find some Silver Bear 95 grain hollowpoints, but, alas, the entire country seems to be out of stock of that. I also found the Fobus holster. I did manage to avoid buying any beef jerky, and (hold on to your hats) didn't see a single Beanie Baby in the entire arena.

Only regret? I didn't buy the T-shirt that said

Nine Out of Ten
Voices in my Head
Said that I Should
Stay Home and
Clean My Guns

I really like that one. If I hadn't had to shell out $12 just to get in, I would have bought it.

Gun Crime Still Going Up in England

Though just maybe it's starting to peak.

According to this BBC News piece:

The number of crimes involving firearms increased by just under 3% in the 12 months to March 2003, to 10,250.

It was well below the 35% rise in the previous year, when gun crime leapt from 7,362 firearms offences to 9,974.

Home Office minister Hazel Blears said: "The risk of a fatal shooting in England and Wales is still one of the lowest in the world."

But minister, it always has been - even long before the bans on semi-automatic rifles and all handguns. The point is, these laws show no evidence of making England and Wales safer, yet they were accomplished at great public expense.

Also in the story, relating to the move to non-dangerous bar glasses and switching to plastic beer bottles:

Violent crime - excluding robberies and sex attacks - increased by 12% between April and June this year, according to the British Crime Survey quarterly results, also released on Thursday.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said the statistics presented a "confusing" and "alarming" picture.

"One thing which no amount of statistical manipulation can disguise is that violent crime has doubled in the last six years and continues to rise alarmingly," he said.

Cheery, that - no?

This piece, also from the BBC, reports:

Gun crime has increased in recent years, including a near doubling of handgun offences since 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre.

Um, make that "since all handguns were banned and all the licensed, registered, legally possessed ones were handed in."

Now, to put this into some perspective:

In 2001-02, there were some 22,300 firearms offences, a rise of almost a third on the previous year. The number of people killed by firearms was 23.

That's a busy weekend in Chicago. Yet we're told constantly by gun control groups that licensing and registration will reduce gun crime and would never be used to confiscate our guns. However, England & Wales had licensing and registration, "safe storage" and all the rest, and when that wasn't enough they confiscated all the semi-auto rifles and then all the handguns.

All the registered ones.

And firearm crime went UP.

Yet if you listen to the Violence Policy Center, the only answer to our gun violence problem is a complete handgun ban.

That worked so well in England, didn't it?

And here's why:

But while it may appear to be rife, it is generally confined to a large number of incidents perpetrated by a small number people in very small areas.

While this is of no comfort to those who may have witnessed gun crime on their own streets, those most likely to be victims are young men.

All the evidence suggests that gun crime is not the problem but a symptom of a huge and well established drugs economy.

And the same is true here. Gun violence is concentrated here too, "to a large number of incidents perpetrated by a small number people in very small areas."

But the VPC et. al want us to take England's gun control path - to the same predictable failure. If you want some idea of the significance of England's gun control failure, when the ban went into effect the number one source of gun violence was Jamaican immigrant gangs called "Yardies." Yet this report states:

So-called Yardie gangs were certainly involved in the growth of crack in the UK.

But Lee Jasper, chair of the Trident advisory group, says the majority of those involved are now British-born.

As their drug trade has become more established, gangs have become more inclined to carry guns to command the respect of rivals, he said.

Now, according to the police, guns are in the hands of regular Brits.

To give you some idea of the futility of banning handguns - even in a nation with strict licensing and registration laws, the report also discusses a recent "amnesty" that allowed people to turn in weapons and ammunition - no question asked:

The Home Office ran a month-long nationwide gun amnesty in April, partly as a response to the outcry following the killings of Birmingham teenagers Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis in January.

More than 43,000 weapons were handed in to the police over that month - but critics say they were not the weapons on the streets. In London's case, there was an extremely poor response from each of the key Trident areas.

Get that? This story has more detail on that "amnesty." Forty-three thousand unregistered weapons and almost a million rounds of ammunition - but almost none from the "very small areas" that have the "large numbers of incidents." According to the story, when the handgun ban went into effect in 1996 they only collected 23,000 firearms and 700,000 rounds of ammo - from the legal, registered owners. Oh, and Letisha and Charlene were gunned down with a submachinegun - illegal to possess in England since 1934, but available in England, new-in-box, via Eastern Europe.

But we're supposed to believe that licensing and registration will work here to reduce crime.

Just like we're supposed to believe that "shall-issue" concealed-carry legislation will result in "blood in the street" and "road rage" killings over fender-benders.

Why is it that gun control advocates never bother to look at reality?

I Just Discovered...

I'm a Retrosexual!

(Hat tip to Because I Say So! for the link.)

This is NOT What I Wanted to Read

The New Orleans Times-Picayune had a recent piece (minor piddling registration required) on a recent speech given by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the rightest of the conservative right-wing justices on the Court.

What did Scalia say that I didn't want to hear?

"It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution," Scalia said at a conference Uptown on the merit selection of judges.

Well, I've believed that for some time, but hearing it from a sitting Justice doesn't give me the warm fuzzies. He says also:

Ideally, Scalia said he would choose merit selection of judges. But when you have courts trying to rewrite laws, he said, "there's a lot to be said for electing judges."

Scalia blasted the existing system, which he said allows courts to change the laws, and not the people.

"What 'we the people' want most of all is someone who will agree with us as to what the evolving constitution says," he said.

"We are free at last, free at last," he said. "There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands."

Scalia, who was nominated by President Reagan in 1986 and confirmed by a Senate vote of 98-0, said these days a so-called conservative judge is politically frozen out of the process.

"What in the world is a moderate interpretation of the text?" he asked, drawing soft laughter from the audience. "Halfway between what it really says and what you want it to say?"

This is supposed to be a nation based on the rule of law. We know what happens to societies in which the rule of law fails, yet what Justice Scalia has said leaves no doubt that the rule of law has been essentially abandoned all the way up to the Supreme Court. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in his dissent to U.S. v. Olmstead -

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.

And we're seeing that, more and more, every day. Aren't we.

Your Negative Attack-Ad Kerry For President Bumperstickers

Just received via email. Spread 'em around:

The Scary Looking Gun Ban

The Laughing Wolf delivers an excellent smackdown on a relative who expressed support for the AWB in his post The Scary Looking Gun Ban. Really, really well done.

And the Laughing Wolf is a Farscape supporter! Outstanding!

Thank You, James

James Lileks, in his extraordinary eloquence, responded to yesterday's bombings in Spain in today's Bleat. James says what I wish I had, the way I wish I could but haven't the talent to.

Go read.

Even Tom Diaz of the VPC Admits the AWB is Useless

I paid $4.95 for the transcript of *hawk, spit* NPR's Morning Edition story about the failure of S. 1805 after the AWB extension and "gun show loophole" amendments were added, after I saw Eugene Volokh's post quoting Tom Diaz of the Gun Ban Violence Policy Center. Here's the complete Diaz quote:

If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass.

Remember, however, what the VPC said so blatantly about an "assault weapon" ban in 1988:

It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate.

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.

Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA's image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer.

Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns, many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and "plastic" firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.

Although the opportunity to restrict assault weapons exists, a question remains for the handgun restriction movement: How? Defining an assault weapon—in legal terms—is not easy. It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are "black and wicked looking."

Charles Krauthammer had one point correct in his editorial "Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet":

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain.(See Britain's current violent crime rate for some idea of its "domestic tranquility." Hell, now they're trying to get rid of glass beer bottles because they make such handy weapons.) Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

The VPC is at least honest and upfront about its goal of banning all handguns and its willingness to do anything, anything to reach that goal.